October 25, 2007
Drums of War
Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs
White House Bomber Request Leaves Some Wondering if U.S. Is Preparing Action in Iran
Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.
The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.
The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."
What urgent need? The Pentagon referred questions on this to Central Command.
ABC News called CENTCOM to ask what the "urgent operational need" is. CENTCOM spokesman Maj. Todd White said he would look into it, but, so far, no answer.
John Sherffius Oct 24, 2007 |
Posted by jnfr at 02:12 PM | Comments (0)
September 04, 2007
More on Iran
Reading Ken Silverstein over at Harper's, and he's been asking his sources about a possible attack on Iran. This is from a former CIA agent who formerly said an attack on Iran was not likely.
It looks like a military strike is in the works and I base that on two things: observable fact and the rhetoric emanating from the White House. There’s a lot of movement of troops and materiel into the region–it’s stuff the United States can’t hide. It’s a huge expense to put Navy battle groups in the Gulf and we’ve got three of them there. We’ve also moved new fighter planes to Guam amidst much public fanfare. You can plainly see the upturn in US Naval activity in and around the Norfolk Naval installations. The movement of ships, re-supply, ammunition loading and general level of activity is high.
The Naval facilities and the ammunition loading areas are well known, and the activity is readily visible, especially at night. There’s a stream of ships coming in to load up and when they take off new ones come in. There’s only one part of the world where all that stuff is heading. Also, everyone I know who would be involved in an attack on Iran–pilots and other air assets–is gone. Normally some of them are around but now all of them are away at the same time.
Just saying.
UPDATE: I've wanted a place to stash this bit of film of Bush's most recent rant about Iran. So here it is. That's part of the "rhetoric" mentioned above.
Posted by jnfr at 06:24 PM | Comments (0)
August 22, 2007
Prelude to an Attack
From Robert Baer at Time Magazine, via Glenn Greenwald:
Reports that the Bush Administration will put Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways: it's either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. But frankly they're guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy....
And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran."
Emphasis added.
UPDATE: Robert Greenwald at Fox Attacks wants you to do something about it:
UPDATE: Raw Story has more from Robert Baer, and footage of an interview where he discusses the possible attack.
Posted by jnfr at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)
August 15, 2007
Terrorists in Iran
I've said before that I'm quite sure Bush and Cheney want, and even intend, to attack Iran. And today's news that Bush intends to label parts of the Iranian military as terrorists is one more move in that direction.
There's no way Bush is going to get another Authorization out of Congress, one which would allow him to actually declare war on Iran. But as you can see by reading the AUMF below, which was passed immediately after 9/11, this latest declaration makes it easier to claim Iran is covered by this AUMF, by declaring they are "aiding" those who attacked us at that time. And Iran is harboring them, of course, since they are part of Iran's military forces. Count on it; Bush is ramping up for more war.
Public Law 107-40
Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF")
Introduction
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one, a States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Posted by jnfr at 11:40 AM | Comments (0)
August 11, 2007
Cheney and Iran
From Froomkin's White House Watch yesterday, I found these tidbits. To me, it sounds like Cheney is quite mad.
From The Washington Note, last May:
Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles)....
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.
According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.
Then, on June 1, the New York Times points to that report, and says:
In interviews, people who have spoken with Mr. Cheney’s staff have confirmed the broad outlines of the reports...
And yesterday, from the McClatchy Washington Bureau, one of the best investigative reporting organizations still in existence:
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said....
Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.
They have less than a year and a half left in power, and they are dangerously belligerent, and dangerously incompetent. Don't be surprised if the U.S. finds itself at war along two fronts by this time next year.
Posted by jnfr at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)
March 30, 2007
Friday Funnies
Jon Stewart tries to talk sense to Iran.Posted by jnfr at 06:11 PM | Comments (0)
March 28, 2007
Military Build-up on Iran Border?
Via Tigerhawk. I have no idea how reliable this source is, but it's interesting anyway.
Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.
"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.
He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future....
Posted by jnfr at 01:12 PM | Comments (0)